The rest of your post essentially tells me that ANY agreement between belligerent parties is pointless as all that matters is the innate strength to enforce said agreement by the involved parties (or perhaps by an external guarantor, but no such guarantor is possible in this case due to the strength of 1 of the parties). So, let us assume that all treaties are useless unless enforced, presumably violently, for the sake of argument. Be that as it may, I am not actually arguing against might being right or against the concept of a victor writing history as they see fit. I am pointing out to you that the "allies" of the USA broke the conditions of this agreement. Whether anyone can or even should remedy this matter is not relevant to my assertion.